Data quality remarks "Some cloud cover...": Doesn't follow on from previous paragraph. I would recommend changing this to something like "Some images are affected by cloud coverage but were not removed if there was less than approximately XX% cloud coverage. Some images were also affected by shadows due to this cloud coverage."

Sample output from exiftool in Readme could start on page 4. Fix this by inserting the \newpage command before the \rule command.

As above with "Image Collection" section.

Images 1, 14 and 15, in my opinion, look overexposed - I would comment on these in the data quality remarks or remove the images and recreate the delivery.

Roll/pitch errors look better but these data seem to have a considerably large height offset and should probably be commented on in the read me.

No vectors screenshots - check with PI that delivery is ok to send before vector delivery if this hasn't been done already for this project.

Multiple deliveries found in processing/delivery/, please delete old one when finished with.

las1.3 files have some waveforms missing in the middle records (not at start or end) and some of the waveforms have abnormally high peaks. Assuming this is due to the fact that the flight lines were flown at low altitudes (c.f. 175b LiDAR 537) and large amounts of noise. May be worth noting in the data quality remarks in the read me. (Note, I looked at pre-classified las1.3 files in Wave Viewer and these showed the same issues).